LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Yes, but I don't consider this outcome very pessimistic because this is already what the current world looks like. How commonly do businesses work for the common good of all humanity, rather than for the sake of their shareholders? The world is not a utopia, but I guess that's something I've already gotten used to.

Thanks for this! I've changed the sentence to:

The target network gets to see one more step than the Q-network does, and thus is a better predictor.

Hopefully this prevents others from the same confusion :)

This is what I came to ask about. Randomizing based on health and then finding that the healthier group makes more despite other factors seems like it doesn't really prove the thing the paper is claiming.

Although the fact that wages matched between the groups beforehand is pretty interesting.

On third order, people who openly worry about X-Risk may get influenced by their environment, becoming less worried as a result of staying with a company whose culture denies X-Risk, which could eventually even cause them to contribute negatively to AI Safety. Preventing them from getting hired prevents this.

The LessWrong Review [? · GW] runs every year to select the posts that have most stood the test of time. This post is not yet eligible for review, but will be at the end of 2025. The top fifty or so posts are featured prominently on the site throughout the year. Will this post make the top fifty?

Wow, that's pessimistic. So in the future you imagine, we could build AIs that promote the good of all humanity, we just won't because if a business built that AI it wouldn't make as much money?

We can’t just compare women with children to those without them because having children is a choice that’s correlated with all of the outcomes we care about. So sorting out two groups of women based on observed fertility will also sort them based on income and education and marital status etc.

Successfully implanting embryos on the first try in IVF is probably not very correlated with these outcomes.

This is maybe a dumb question, but I would have imagined that successful implantation would be related to good health outcomes (based on some intiution that successful implantation represents an organ of your body functioning properly, and imagining that the higher success rates of younger people has to do with their health). Is that not true?

Kelsey Piper now reports: "I have seen the extremely restrictive off-boarding agreement that contains nondisclosure and non-disparagement provisions former OpenAI employees are subject to. It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, from criticizing their former employer. Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it."

It also occurs to me that the causality could go the other way: Ilya and Jan may have timed their departure to coincide with the 4o release for a number of reasons. If they go on to launch a new safety org soon, for example, I'd be more inclined to think that the timing of the two events was a result of Ilya/Jan trying to use the moment to their advantage.